Why overunity MUST be difficult or even impossible to replicate.

[profitis]

Lol lanca what's the elephant riding on.a big wheel lol.

[forest]

no, it's the real answer
for ant this is free energy but not for elephant but should ant care about this ? not really

[gauschor]

I totally agree.  The universe is indeed expanding but,  the mass remains the same, only the space and distance between the mass is increasing.  So, no more mass exists now than what was there as the original input.  No something from nothing.

You don't know that. In a universe, where simple thoughts mean creation, every new thought will extend the universe a little bit more. We can't prove we live in such a universe and we can't prove the opposite.

[profitis]

Woooooo @forest I feel sorry for you buddy.here's a challenge for you: prove to the audience that the MnO2-nickel-air profitis battery obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics please.remember,it has about 3 times karpens original power density..

[pauldude000]

One doesn't have to know everything about everything to show that something is impossible (or highly unlikely)

From where I stand peoples desire to take complex problems and pretend that they are easily captured by awkward prose (like your own) is among the more arrogant things I see in a day.

Interesting. You are right in that you do not have to know everything about everything to show that something is impossible, you merely have to know everything about one thing, which we do not. That is an argument from incredulity, since you bring in the concepts of formal and informal logical fallacies.


Since we are on that topic now anyway, is it not arrogant to challenge an argument and then end your short dissertation with an argumentum ad hominem?


Here is a 'heads up', so to speak -- You do not have a sole lease or ownership of logical, rational thought. Either agreement or disagreement are both allowed and encouraged. Both positions are often highly subjective states anyway, since in very few cases that I have witnessed have the positions been determined logically, but instead tend to be based upon personal bias and emotional preference.


Me stating something you dislike or disbelieve does not inherently make me arrogant.


Simple fact: The 1st law of thermodynamics (energy is neither created nor destroyed), as a physical law, only applies within the framework within which it was proposed (within a closed system). Application of this law outside of that framework invalidates it's applicability. Many scientist seem to have forgotten that little principle concerning physical laws, in that they are only laws within a very specific situation.


If any system is not closed, then the first law does not apply.


We also do not get the privilege of defining ad hoc what is, or is not, a closed system by definition. The definition does not get to change at a whim, or the law is invalidated. We also do not get the logical privilege of limiting the system to suit our desired outcome.


Any unknown energy source that does exist within any system is already a part of the system being examined. Our lack of knowledge concerning said energy source does not allow us to exempt said energy source from the system -- with either an argument from ignorance or probability. To do such is true arrogance.